Trump and team renew attacks on adversaries after gala shooting

Former US actress Jessica Mann told Harvey Weinstein's retrial Monday how the disgraced movie mogul flooded her with praise in the weeks before allegedly raping her in 2013 in a New York hotel room. 

Weinstein, a central figure of abuse allegations that spurred the MeToo movement, is already in prison for other sex offenses, so he will remain behind bars regardless of the verdict. 

It is the third time that Mann has taken the stand against Weinstein after a 2020 guilty verdict was overturned due to mishandling of witnesses, and a 2025 case ended in mistrial after a jury-room feud. 

"I felt like he was a really nice person and he was offering to mentor me," Mann, wearing a beige jacket over a white top, told a New York courthouse. 

She recalled how he showered her with compliments after the pair met at a party in early 2013, when Mann was an aspiring 27-year-old actress and Weinstein a Hollywood powerbroker.

"He told me that I was prettier than Natalie Portman," she said.

She added that Weinstein's apparent interest in boosting her career, including buying her books on acting, initially seemed like a "miracle."

The 40-year-old's testimony -- much of which echoed the 2020 and 2025 cases -- was emotional and she took occasional pauses as her voice broke. 

Mann's testimony will continue Tuesday. 

- Avalanche of allegations -

Weinstein, wearing a suit and seated in a wheelchair he is bound to due to ill health, occasionally shook his head as Mann spoke.

Prosecutor Candace White told last week's opening hearing how Weinstein "preyed upon a fragile and sheltered young woman."

The defense is seeking to dismiss Mann's rape allegation by painting her relationship with Weinstein as consensual.

The Oscar-winning Weinstein, 74, is already serving a 16-year prison term in a California case for the rape of a European actress more than a decade ago. He is appealing that conviction.

He is also appealing a conviction last June of sexual assault against movie producer Miriam Haley.

Weinstein was known for his fiery temper, and the industry had long been rife with suggestions that he took advantage of his power to sexually exploit women.

In 2017, blockbuster investigations by the New Yorker and the New York Times laid bare a series of claims by young women that triggered an avalanche of allegations from more than 80 complainants and prompted the global MeToo movement.

bjt/md

(The Center Square) – The Colorado House on Monday approved a bill allowing for the access of abortion medication on college campuses.

House Bill 1335 is sponsored by Reps. Lorena Garcia and Kenny Nguyen, both Democrats. Garcia represents Adams and Jefferson counties. Nguyen represents parts of Adams, Broomfield and Weld counties.

Forty-one Democrats in the House voted for HB 1335 on its third and final reading in the chamber. Twenty-one Republicans and one Democrat, Rep. Bob Marshall of Douglas County, opposed it.

The bill requires institutions of higher education that operate a student health center to provide on-site abortion medication services through the student health center. The bill also requires an institution that has an on-site pharmacy to maintain a stock of abortion medication to dispense to students enrolled at the institution.

Campuses that do not have an on-site pharmacy must either submit a prescription for abortion medication to an off-campus pharmacy or dispense abortion medication through the campus student health center with permission from the student health center’s licensure.

An institution is not required to provide access to or stock abortion medication if doing so would conflict with the institution's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices.

Several House Republicans spoke out against the bill, saying that abortion medication could harm students who take the pills.

Pointing to an April 2025 study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, state Rep. Stephanie Luck said researchers found one in 10 patients experience a serious adverse health event after taking the abortion pill.

“We ran an amendment to say, ‘Hey, at the very least, let’s make sure that the college health center, the group that knows that this girl has taken these, that they follow up at least twice’ because it’s important that somebody check in,” said Luck, who represents Chaffee, Custer, Fremont, Pueblo and Teller counties. “We didn’t adopt that standard.”

Rep. Ken DeGraaf, R-El Paso County, also urged a “no” vote. 

Like Luck, DeGraaf mentioned the health concerns for women taking the abortion pill, and he questioned whether campuses are “equipped for the psychological and physical fallout of this” bill.

“I kind of envision that someday we're going to meet these pre-born persons, either as a defender or an attacker,” said DeGraaf. 

Meanwhile, Rep. Brandi Bradley, R-Douglas County, said this bill is not about access. It is about a mandate.

“It forces colleges to provide abortion drugs, shift costs onto students, and expands medical services without ensuring medical safety,” said Bradley. “We should be strengthening healthcare, not politicizing campuses and burdening institutions.”

Bradley later recommended that people running campus health centers close their operations.

“Force these students to find a doctor somewhere else because we’re mandating unsafe practices onto you,” said Bradley. “You will be sued, you will pay the consequences, and I just wouldn’t do it.”

Garcia, the legislation's sponsor, said the bill came directly from students.

“This bill exists because a group that organizes and works with young people on campuses,” said Garcia. “They heard directly from their students on campus that this was a need, to be able to access the abortion pill on campus.”

Garcia added that she worked with “every single level of higher institution in this state,” from community college to the big flagship schools. According to Garcia, there is not a single higher education entity opposed to this bill.

“This bill is nothing more than making sure that the constitutional rights that our voters put in place are made accessible,” said Garcia, referring to a 2024 voter initiative that enshrined the right to abortion in the Colorado constitution. 

The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists has said abortion medication is safe and effective.

For a brief moment, US President Donald Trump spoke of "love and coming together" after a shooting at a media gala. It didn't take long for his administration's tone to change.

Less than 48 hours after Saturday's incident, at which thousands of journalists were present, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was blaming the alleged assassination attempt on "systemic demonization" by Trump's opponents.

"The left-wing cult of hatred against the president and all of those who support him and work for him has gotten multiple people hurt and killed, and it almost did so again this weekend," Leavitt told a briefing.

"Those who constantly, falsely label and slander the president as a fascist, as a threat to democracy, and compare him to Hitler to score political points, are fueling this kind of violence," she added.

At the same time, Trump and his wife Melania were lashing out at television comedian Jimmy Kimmel, a long-term target of right-wing ire, calling for him to be sacked over a joke about the first lady.

"I appreciate that so many people are incensed by Kimmel's despicable call to violence, and normally would not be responsive to anything that he said but, this is something far beyond the pale," Trump said on his Truth Social platform.

"Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC," he said, referring to ABC's parent company Disney.

It was a perhaps predictable end to any hopes that Trump might halt his own vitriolic and often incendiary language against opponents, immigrants and journalists.

During more than a decade in politics Trump has pushed all the barriers of presidential language.

The media are a favorite target for the former reality TV star, who has repeatedly branded reporters "the enemy of the people." Trump has often responded aggressively to female journalists in particular, calling one "piggy."

- 'Disgrace' -

Trump has also pardoned those accused of violence, including hundreds of rioters who raided the US Capitol in a bid to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

And in recent months alone, Trump has said he was "glad" that Robert Mueller, the former FBI chief who led the "Russiagate" probe, was dead -- and threatened Iran that a "whole civilization will die tonight."

After Leavitt's comments -- delivered as she took a brief break from maternity leave -- Trump's Democratic opponents hit back.

"This so-called White House press secretary wants to lecture America and lecture us about civility? Get lost," Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, told reporters.

"Clean up your own house before you have anything to say to us about the language that we use."

Just days earlier, it seemed things could be about to change.

Trump had taken an unusually reflective tone in the immediate aftermath of the shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner, which Leavitt said was the third attempt on his life in two years.

Still dressed in his tuxedo as he addressed journalists after the incident, Trump admitted he had been about to "rip" the press in his speech -- but instead he spoke almost philosophically about America's polarized politics.

"I saw a room that was just totally unified," Trump said, saying there was a "a tremendous amount of love and coming together" and even thanking the head of the White House Correspondents Association, which hosts the annual dinner.

The next day, he was back to his old self.

"You're a disgrace," he told CBS journalist Norah O'Donnell on the 60 Minutes program when she read extracts of a purported statement from the shooting suspect that mentioned a "pedophile" and a "rapist", without naming Trump.

"I'm not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person... You shouldn't be reading that on 60 Minutes."

dk-aue/ksb

(The Center Square) – Consumer protection organization Consumers’ Research launched a campaign to warn Congress about nonprofit hospitals that prioritize "woke" politics such as diversity, equity and inclusion, transgender ideology for minors, and climate extremism over their patients.

Executive director of Consumers’ Research Will Hild told The Center Square that “it is appalling to see hospitals indulge in woke politics while their patients struggle with long waits, surprise bills, and a continuous lack of price transparency.”

“Consumers are right to be fed up, especially when their tax dollars are underwriting activism,” Hild said.

“They see how nonprofit hospitals are abusing their privileges to prioritize everything from DEI to trans ideology for kids to climate extremism, and beyond,” Hild said.

Hild noted that “nonprofit status is not an automatic right; it is a public subsidy granted in exchange for a public benefit.”

“Every cent and second spent on left-wing activism is money and time taken away from patients,” Hild said.

“New York-Presbyterian and CommonSpirit Health…are just two of many examples of nonprofit hospitals using taxpayer dollars to push an ideological agenda,” Hild said of the two hospitals included in his organization’s campaign. “As this new campaign shows, Consumers' Research will continue exposing woke hospitals and hold them accountable.”

Neither New York-Presbyterian nor CommonSpirit Health have yet to respond to The Center Square’s individual requests for comment.

Consumers’ Research’s campaign against woke hospitals includes a mobile billboard on Capitol Hill and a website, according to media relations.

On the website, Consumers’ Research stated that both New York-Presbyterian and CommonSpirit Health prioritize “woke politics over patients.”

For instance, Consumers’ Research revealed that New-York Presbyterian’s 2025 Health Equity Report stated that “advancing health justice is essential to our organization’s mission and key part of our strategic framework.”

New York-Presbyterian also runs the Dalio Center For Health Justice which, according to its website, aims “to understand and address the root causes of health inequities with the goal of setting a new standard of health for the communities we serve.”

According to Consumers’ Research’s campaign website, New York-Presbyterian promotes “‘health equity for all’ through community partnerships.” 

The website also revealed that New York-Presbyterian operates “The Compass Program,” which is “a program that supports transgenderism in children.”

According to Consumers’ Research, New York-Presbyterian Pediatrician-In-Chief Sallie Permar “advocated for transgender intervention on kids and pledged to continue ‘providing gender-affirming care to our transgender youth.’” 

“She also committed to ‘fight against legislation’ limiting access to ‘gender-affirming care’ and to advocate for transgender youth as a ‘vulnerable population,’” the website said.

CommonSpirit Health also has a hand in “woke politics,” Hild said, as it runs an Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging.

According to the office’s website, it “leads” the “health equity strategy for CommonSpirit” by “promoting a workforce that represents the diversity of…patients, families, and communities,” “ensuring health equity is embedded across [its] sites of care,” as well as “removing barriers through economic empowerment while addressing systemic racism.”

CommonSpirit also has a “five-pillars approach to create equity for all and lists ‘advocating for social justice’ as a key pillar ‘especially when it comes to healthcare access,’” Consumers’ Research wrote.

Consumers’ Research stated that “CommonSpirit collaborated with Morehouse School of Medicine to push DEI through a $100 million initiative ‘focused on increasing the number of clinicians who are Black or from other underrepresented populations.’”

Beyond DEI, CommonSpirit Health promotes transgender ideology, according to Consumers’ Research, “through a systemwide steering committee to ‘ensure standardized training and policies related to best practices for preferred pronouns, gender-neutral restrooms, and family visitation.’”

Additionally, “in 2023, a report was released that exposed how CommonSpirit was offering transgender surgeries and hormone treatments, including providing these transgender interventions to kids,” Consumers’ Research said.

Consumers’ Research also revealed that “CommonSpirit integrated radical climate goals through its “Race To Zero” campaign targeting net-zero emissions by 2040.”

Consumers’ Research’s campaign comes ahead of the House Committee on Ways & Means’ Tuesday hearing “on the impact of rising health care costs on patients and families.”

(The Center Square) – A majority of U.S. adults say children born in the country should automatically get citizenship, according to a new poll published as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule on President Donald Trump's effort to end the practice.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted April 15-20, found that 64% of Americans support maintaining birthright citizenship, while 32% said citizenship should not automatically be granted at birth. The survey collected responses from 4,557 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

The results come weeks after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a challenge to Trump's January 2025 executive order that would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent legal resident. A ruling is expected before the end of the court's term in late June.

Public opinion on the issue breaks sharply along party lines. Nine percent of Democrats say birthright citizenship should be scrapped, compared with 62% of Republicans. Independents are divided, with 66% saying the policy should stand and 26% saying it should not.

Support for birthright citizenship crosses racial lines. Among Black and Hispanic adults polled separately, 74% said they believe the policy should be upheld. Fifty-eight percent of white adults agreed. Opposition was highest among white respondents, at 39%, compared with 22% of Hispanic respondents and 19% of Black respondents.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 1. Several justices expressed skepticism of the administration's position during the hearing. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned how the government could move from narrow historical exceptions to the citizenship rule, such as children of diplomats or invading armies, to exclude the entire class of children born to parents in the country illegally.

Trump attended the oral arguments in person, a first for a sitting president. He has since said publicly that he expects the court to rule against him.

"If they rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship, which they probably will, it will cost America massive amounts of money but, more importantly, it will cost America its DIGNITY!" Trump wrote on social media earlier this month.

Trump's executive order was blocked by four federal judges before the Supreme Court stepped in last June, ruling 6-3 to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions against the policy. The court did not rule on the merits of the order at that time.

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Trump's administration has argued the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children of those in the country illegally or on temporary visas.

Allyson Felix, the most decorated woman in Olympic athletics history with 11 medals, says she is planning a comeback at age 40 with her eyes on the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

Felix told Time magazine in a story published online on Monday that she is preparing for what she hopes will be a sixth Olympics in her hometown when she will be 42.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime homecoming," Felix said of her Olympic dream. "And it is the only thing powerful enough to pull me back."

Felix is the most decorated American Olympian in athletics.

She captured her only solo gold in the 200 meters at London in 2012, added gold in the 4x400 relay in 2008 in Beijing, 2012 in London, 2016 in Rio de Janeiro and 2021 in Tokyo and won 4x100 titles in 2012 and 2016.

She took 200m silver in 2004 and 2008, 400 silver in 2016 and 400 bronze at Tokyo.

Felix has championed women returning to competition after having children. She gave birth to a daughter in 2018 and a son in 2024.

Felix attended the 2024 Paris Olympics as a spectator and found she yearned for her competitive days.

"It was definitely mixed emotions," Felix told the magazine. "There were moments where I was like, 'Oh, this is so great. It's so exciting to be in the stands and on the other side.'

"And then there were moments where I was, 'You know, I miss this feeling.'"

Felix also won a record 20 medals at the World Championships, the most for any woman or man, including 14 titles.

She won the 200 crown in 2005, 2007 and 2009 and the 400 in 2015 as well as three 4x100 relay titles, a 4x400 mixed relay crown in 2019 and six women's 4x400 relay golds, including at what was her farewell meet, the 2022 worlds in Eugene, Oregon.

Felix, a member of the athletes commission for the 2028 LA Olympic organizing committee, said she is realistic about her quest.

"I know, at 40, I am not at my peak. I have no illusions about that," Felix said. "I'm very clear in what it is and what I want to see. And so I hope it's seen that way."

Getting support from a home crowd is part of her goal.

"When I was competing, you just heard this roar for host-country athletes at the Olympics," Felix said. "I would love to experience that."

Simply making the attempt to compete at the LA Games is a victory of its own for Felix.

"I would probably be upset at myself if I just didn't give it a try," Felix said. "However it turns out, I'll still be there with my kids, hanging out and cheering everybody on."

js/jc

France said Monday that Iran must be ready to make "major concessions" to end a crisis, as countries piled pressure on Tehran at a UN session on its control of the key Strait of Hormuz.

"There can be no lasting solution to this crisis unless the Iranian regime agrees to major concessions and a radical shift in its stance," Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told the UN Security Council.

Barrot said that Iran must show a way "to peaceful coexistence within its region and for the Iranian people to be able to build freely their own future," months after the cleric-run state ruthlessly repressed mass protests.

Barrot was attending a session initiated by Bahrain in which dozens of countries made a joint call for Iran to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the gateway to the Gulf and one-fifth of the world's oil.

In response to being attacked, Iran has moved to exert control over the strait, saying it is setting up a toll system, defying warnings from US President Donald Trump who has watched angrily as global oil prices soar.

Mike Waltz, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said that Iran's laying of mines violated international law.

"Indiscriminate planting of mines in international waterways -- that makes Iran international criminal pirates of the straits," Waltz said.

"Tehran admits to these crimes, but it's so incompetent, it also admits to not knowing where the mines are."

- Iran urges 'guarantees' -

Iran's envoy, speaking hours later at the day-long session, noted that Iran, like the United States, was not part of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, said that Iran needed "credible guarantees" that it will not again be attacked before it can ensure "lasting stability and security in the Persian Gulf" and beyond.

"The United States is acting like pirates and terrorists, targeting commercial vessels through coercion and intimidation, terrorizing their crews, unlawfully seizing ships and taking crew members hostage," Iravani said.

"But no one from those who have expressed their concern for international navigation dares to refer to or condemn this terrorist act at today's meeting."

The Trump administration itself often denounces international law and institutions when US actions come under scrutiny.

Trump has also criticized NATO allies for not assisting the United States in the war, on which he did not previously consult them, although he has also insisted the United States does not need help.

But Waltz said at the Security Council: "Now is the time for a coalition of like-minded partners to step up and step in with real capabilities and help."

Barrot, while denouncing Iran's actions, did not shy away from blaming the United States and Israel, saying they started the war "without a clearly defined goal and outside of international law."

"But the Iranian regime bears the overwhelming responsibility for this situation," he said, pointing to its "obstinacy" on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and "its continual support for terrorist groups."

gw-sct/ksb

(The Center Square) – Outgoing U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, is again calling on the federal government to take action against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), this time against its California chapter. 

On Monday, he led a congressional delegation calling on U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to suspend funding for CAIR-CA and its affiliates and initiate debarment proceedings. He did so in response to a Department of Justice investigation launched more than a year ago into CAIR for alleged misuse of federal funds related to Afghan refugees.

“CAIR’s longstanding ties to terrorist organizations, including Hamas – a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization – combined with documented financial mismanagement and misuse of federal grant funds administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), pose a grave risk to national security and render CAIR unfit to receive taxpayer dollars,” the delegation argues. 

“Why should Americans’ taxpayer dollars go to groups like CAIR that facilitate terrorism? … Groups like CAIR that support Hamas should not be lining their pockets on the backs of hardworking Americans,” Roy said in a news release.

The letter to Kennedy refers to a March 2025 Intelligent Advocacy Network complaint filed with the DOJ urging it to investigate CAIR-CA’s alleged misuse of federal funds and EOIR accreditation violations. It questions millions of dollars CAIR-CA received from the federal government including for an Afghan Legal Services Project, alleges CAIR-LA is not a legal 501c3 entity, alleges accreditation violations, and alleges CAIR ties to Islamic terrorism. In response, the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review launched an investigation.

The congressional delegation also asked HHS to investigate CAIR’s grant compliance and terrorist affiliations. It argues, “CAIR purports to be a civil rights organization dedicated to enhancing understanding of Islam, protecting civil liberties, and empowering American Muslims. Since 2022, HHS has sub-granted more than $15 million to CAIR through the California Department of Social Services for Afghan resettlement programs. However, overwhelming evidence confirms the nonprofit’s deep and enduring connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, Hamas.”

It also argues “CAIR’s status as a federal grant recipient not only jeopardizes public funds but also threatens national security by subsidizing an entity aligned with terrorist groups and extremist movements. Immediate suspension is essential to prevent further harm, followed by formal debarment proceedings to bar CAIR from all federal non-procurement programs, including ORR grants,” referring to the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement. 

CAIR has refuted the allegations, having earlier this year sent a letter to a Senate subcommittee about its work with Afghan refugees. It also maintains that IAN is “an apparent front group for the Israeli lobby whose primary purpose appears to be smearing critics of the Israeli government” that posts “various conspiracy theories about CAIR and other critics of the Israeli government.” 

CAIR-Texas also rejects a foreign terrorist organization designation it received from Gov. Greg Abbott and has sued. It argues it is facing religious persecution and has no ties to terrorism, The Center Square reported. 

This is the latest action Roy, who is running for Texas attorney general, has taken related to CAIR and Islamic ideology. He recently introduced the Designating Hamas Affiliates in America Act of 2026 to designate CAIR as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization. If enacted, it would block CAIR’s assets and prohibit individuals in the U.S. from interacting with it. He also introduced the No Tax Exemptions for Terror Act to eliminate the tax-exempt status for extremist groups with close ties to terrorist organizations, which he argues includes CAIR.

Roy also filed a bill to denaturalize and deport individuals he argues are Marxist and Islamists, including the mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, after which the bill is named, The Center Square reported.

He also cofounded a Sharia Free America Caucus in Congress “to counter the alarming rise of Sharia Law in the United States. Sharia is a dominating force that is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution,” among other initiatives. 

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, also filed a bill to ban Sharia law in the U.S. “to ensure anti-American jihadists and those who dare to try and implement Sharia Law’s hateful ideology in our freedom-loving, God-fearing communities are stopped and held accountable for their radical discrimination and flagrant violation of our Constitution.”

They are among multiple anti-Sharia initiatives launched by Texas Republicans in the past year, The Center Square reported. Banning Sharia law is a state legislative priority for the Texas legislature to consider next year. It is also at the top of 10 nonbinding propositions listed on the Republican primary ballot, which overwhelmingly passed, The Center Square reported. 

(The Center Square) – Marilyn Monroe's home is the subject of a federal lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles.

Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank purchased the property in the affluent Brentwood area. It is a 2,300 square foot, Spanish-style colonial home that Monroe lived in for about six months until her death there from a barbiturate overdose on Aug. 4, 1962.

Milstein’s and Bank’s attorneys at the Pacific Legal Foundation said the couple wanted to raze it and do something else with the property.

“The old Marilyn Monroe house has been unoccupied since 2019,” J. David Breemer, senior attorney with the foundation, told The Center Square. “It's not in great shape.”

According to Breemer, the couple got permits from the city to remove the home and clear the property. They also spent money on the project.

“All of a sudden, the city turned around and decided, after 60 years, it wanted to designate the property as a historical cultural monument to Marilyn Monroe, which freezes the property, stops property owners from being able to do anything. And then the city revoked the previous issuance of permits,” said Breemer. 

Breemer said the city's action cost the couple “quite a bit" of money.

They bought this property for $8.5 million at a time when it was not designated as a historical cultural monument. 

“For 60 years, the city treated this property as just a normal residential property,” said Breemer. “They issued permits to 14 other owners to alter, add additions, do all kinds of things to the property since Marilyn Monroe owned it. So when Milstein and Bank bought the property, they just assumed that based on the city's past practices that they would be able to use it like a normal property. And they, in fact, got the permit, so they spent $8.5 million on that at reasonable expectation.”

The couple then spent another $30,000 or more to begin the grading and the demolition process before the city stepped in and said that it was going to designate the property a historical cultural monument.

“So now they're stuck with a property that they can't do much with, if anything, and they are also subject to constant trespassing because of the historical cultural monument to Marilyn Monroe,” said Breemer. “People want to come see it, and to come see it, you have to climb walls and break into the property and trespass.”

That, said Breemer, is happening frequently.

The lawsuit asserts that if the city wants to create a public monument out of private property for what it thinks is the public benefit and enjoyment of keeping it the same forever, then it needs to buy the property and pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's eminent domain clause.

“The Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay compensation when it takes' private property. And so the lawsuit here is that the city has effectively taken this property for its public purposes of preserving it without paying the owner,” said Breemer. “It's created basically a Marilyn Monroe Museum on private property and foisted the costs of that on the private property owners because now they're the ones that have to preserve and maintain it the same way.”

The Center Square sought comment from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, which did not respond before press time.

Los Angeles City Planning told The Center Square that it does not comment on pending litigation.

The case is Brinah Milstein et al v City of Los Angeles et al. It is filed at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a second and final time in favor of Texas’ redistricting law, effectively ending all challenges to the state's new congressional maps. This was after the high court chastised district court judges in El Paso for their handling of the case and blocked their ruling from going into effect, The Center Square reported. 

The Supreme Court’s emergency ruling last December allowed Texas’ new congressional maps to remain in effect for the 2026 midterm election. A May 26 runoff election is the partial result of this: new districts and multiple candidates running for open seats led to many races still to be determined. 

Last year, during a second special session, more than 50 House Democrats left the state to prevent the law from being voted on. Fleeing to California, Illinois, New York and elsewhere, they effectively halted legislative business for more than two weeks. The law was eventually passed, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed it into law. 

Several groups then sued and two federal judges in El Paso ruled that Texas’ new redistricting law, which had already been on the books for more than 75 days, couldn’t be used. Instead, Texas must use a 2021 law, they said, even after the legislature repealed the 2021 law.  

The lone dissenting Circuit judge, Jerry Smith, expressed outrage over the process, alleging the chief judge engaged in “judicial misbehavior” and “outrageous conduct,” The Center Square reported. The two majority judges had issued other decisions the U.S. Supreme Court later vacated, Smith said, adding that this ruling was no different. 

After the El Paso ruling, Texas filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a stay of the lower court ruling. In its 6-3 December ruling, it said the district court “committed at least two serious [legal] errors” and ignored Supreme Court warnings about redistricting lawsuits filed months before an election.

“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election,” it said. “The District Court violated that rule here. The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.”

Agreeing with Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court also chastised the two lower court judges for “failing to apply correct legal standards set out in case law,” The Center Square reported.

Finding no need to repeat itself, the Supreme Court on Monday simply stated it reversed the district court’s judgment. It issued two sentences related to the case in an order list noting that justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson dissented “from the court’s summary reversal.” The same justices dissented last year.

In response, Abbott Press Secretary Andrew Mahaleris told The Center Square the governor “is pleased that the Supreme Court reversed a poorly reasoned decision that halted Texas’ new congressional maps. The right legal answer was obvious. These maps better represent our constituents and allow more Texans to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is a victory for Texas voters, for common sense, and for the U.S. Constitution."

Attorney General Ken Paxton also said the ruling was “a clear rejection of meritless attacks and a victory for the rule of law. Texas’s congressional map is lawful, constitutional, and reflects the will of our citizens.” 

State Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, who leads the Texas Democratic Caucus and led House Democrats fleeing the state last year, disagreed. He said the Supreme Court “did not protect the Constitution” in its ruling.  He again said the new congressional map is “racist,” enables Republicans to steal seats, “weaken Black and Latino voting power,” and creates “a rigged path to keep control of Congress.” 

He also said the ruling was not a victory for Texas Republicans or Republicans in general. “When we broke quorum last year, Texas House Democrats forced his power grab into the open. Now, California and Virginia have answered and leveled the playing field, and Democrats across the country are still fighting back,” Wu said in an emailed statement.

Abbott is still pressing forward with his case before the Texas Supreme Court to have Wu removed from office, arguing he vacated his seat when he absconded. The Texas House has also fined more than 50 members nearly $423,000 for absconding.